DELAIRE GOVERNANCE RETAINS NAME RIGHTS
Delaire LOST in WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center to Brecker.
WIPO rules that Brecker's criticism is fair.
“Complainant (Delaire) argues that Respondent (Manfred Brecker) uses his website to promote false information to defame and tarnish Complainant……. Complainant has presented no evidence to show that Respondent’s website contains false information, and, in any event, the Policy is not suitable for resolving the type of broader dispute presently between the parties. Thus, overall, the record supports the finding that Respondent is using the Delaire name for the exercise of noncommercial free speech.” Read the entire ruling here.
The findings of the court will provide a strong foundation for findings of fact in subsequent lawsuits on the kangaroo court which suspended Manny Brecker. Only member written bylaws to protect members from board abuse will correct this situation. Vote No on proposed bylaws as this is just another power grab against your rights. Read the entire ruling here.
AS PROMISED, WE HAVE THE BRECKER RESPONSE TO THE DELAIRE WIPO CHARGE.
The Brecker response to the Delaire WIPO is full of details and real information. There are no slanderous remarks as Delaire repeatedly made in their desperate struggle to close the web Delaire Governance. The Brecker respond is comprised of case histories and actual data. No imaginative fiction and slander. We took the high road with the truth. The facts are all in our favor.
Delaire never registered the name. Research discovered 3 full pages of people using the name DELAIRE for many different services. The Butcher, the Baker, the Candlestick Maker all use the name Delaire. This discovery is but one small factor to make the Delaire domain challenge mute. But there is more...Most significantly, the claim is now in the process of being adjudicated. When Delaire’s claim is found to be without merit, it will be Delaire that will have to pay for the costs that had to be borne by Manny Brecker for the response which was totally unnecessary for a claim without merit. (As per Article XVII Section 6 Litigation). Just another expense to be added to the operating deficit. Other people’s money make the deficit go away. Karpel & CO. keep creating more and more expenses that have to be paid by the mandatory members in the form of assessments. October 22, 2017 will reveal that at the membership meeting. Meanwhile, read the response here.
Delaire v. Brecker Domain Name Challenge
Delaire files a complaint with the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), challenging Brecker's right to use the Delaire "common law" trademark in its Domain Name, www.delairegovernance.com. You can read the entire complaint here. If you like fiction, this is the story for you. This challenge will take place under a process called the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP). Here is a link to Wikipedia, which will give you the Reader's Digest version of how this process works. We will be adding to the brief statements above, but in the interim wanted to make the complaint available to anyone interested. We believe that Delaire's claim is without merit and fully expect to prevail in this matter.
Interestingly, Delaire states the following in their complaint:
“Not surprisingly, Mr. Brecker is one of the 326 mandatory members who would benefit financially from eliminating the mandatory membership rule.” They admit that all of the members would benefit without mandatory membership. This confirms what Brecker has been saying all along.
Since this complaint was received, Brecker has marshaled his legal team and given the go ahead for a vigorous defense. He has authorized his attorneys to use all resources necessary to defeat this niggling challenge, including Intellectual Property counsel with expertise in WIPO and ICANN matters. In the past several months, Delaire has been served with two lawsuits from Brecker. It is highly likely there will be a third if the Board fails to rescind the twelve month suspension meted out by the Grievance Committee. That hearing is scheduled for August 28th.
What is the purpose of Brecker’s website? He is asking that the Club provide a more secure voting process, which prevents fraud and manipulation. Isn’t that a good thing for all Delaireans? The other thing he seeks is a clarification or elimination of the grievance process. As written, the only element required to charge someone with a grievance is “misconduct”. It is not defined in our bylaws or anywhere else. They say they will decide on a case by case basis. There are no other offenses mentioned, nor any sentences. Shouldn’t a person know what type of behavior could get them charged? Shouldn’t they also know what penalty might be forthcoming based on the degree of severity of their offense? Grievance Chairman Richard Abbey recently clarified the Grievance Committee jurisdiction. Unfortunately, Abbey has once again demonstrated the illegal SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT system. He has rewritten the Grievance by-laws to not have Jurisdiction in a case involving a favorite son, yet disregarded his own rules of Jurisdiction to please Karpel v. Brecker. Ultimately a jury may have to decide the case instead of a Kangaroo Court in Delaire's Boardroom. Could you imagine what our criminal justice system would be like if it was as slipshod as the grievance process at Delaire? It seems to us that Delaire and its members could benefit greatly from both these changes. Doesn’t it make sense to make the positive changes? It would save a whole lot of time and money and make Delaire a much more pleasant place to live.
Make no mistake, this campaign against Brecker and the fight by the Board to maintain the status quo is all about power. They want people in fear of speaking up and asking for accountability. The voting process and the grievance process are two big sticks they wield over the members to keep them submissive. They want to maintain mandatory membership because it allows them to provide substandard goods and services with little, if any, member recourse. Delaire residents are captive customers, whose only practical remedy is to move and go elsewhere. If the Club had to survive in a free market environment, we believe they would fail. Just look at the golf course renovation. Things are going to change, whether they like it or not.
A copy of the Brecker response will be posted
on this website once it has been filed with WIPO.